Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/578/2016

Tajbir Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Mishra

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/578/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	26/07/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	17/01/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Tajbir Kaur D/o Apinder Singh, R/o H.No.446, Sector 20, Chandigarh.

……… Complainant.

Versus

 

(1)   Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, 5^th Floor, Unitech, Commercial Tower-II, Sector 45, Block-B, Greenwood City, Gurgaon – 122001, Haryana, India.

 

(2)   Sammati Enterprises, through its Sales Manager, SCO- 6, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH.S.S.PANESAR               PRESIDENT

                                MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA      MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Simranjeet Singh, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

          Put in brief, the facts of the case are that on 17.07.2016, the complainant visited the outlet of the Opposite Party No.2 – Sammati Enterprises. In order to promote the sale of their products, the Opposite Parties had offered flat 40% discount on MRP. The complainant purchased four products from the aforesaid Outlet which was having MRP of Rs.2999/-, Rs.1799/-, Rs.1599/- and Rs.5999/- (inclusive all taxes). The Opposite Party No.2 demanded an amount of Rs.7809/- which included Rs.371.88/- as VAT @ 5% [Sale Invoice Annexure P-1]. The complainant raised objection relating to charging of extra VAT as the cost of the products was inclusive of all taxes and VAT had already been added to the said cost, but, the officials/ employees of the Opposite Party No.2 did not agree. The complainant has alleged that the Opposite Parties have adopted unfair trade practice by charging extra VAT from her. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      Complainant led evidence.

 

4.      We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and have also perused the record.   

 

5.      The case of the Complainant is that she was charged extra VAT @5% for the four products with MRP of Rs.2999/-, Rs.1799/-, Rs.1599/- and Rs.5999/- (inclusive all taxes) after giving a discount of 40%.

 

6.      Significantly, the Opposite Parties did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted.

 

7.      In this backdrop, the sole question which survives for determination is whether the MRP includes all taxes including VAT and whether after discount VAT can be charged or not?   

 

8.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, we are of the considered opinion that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. Meaning thereby that MRP includes VAT and after discount no VAT can be charged, so on discounted product also VAT cannot be charged if VAT is included in MRP. 

 

9.      At any rate, if the Opposite Parties have offered discount of 40% for an article purchased by the Complainant/Customer, then the Opposite Parties are bound to sell the article(s) after discount. Though Opposite Parties had offered 40% discount on the article in question, still they charged 5% extra VAT on discounted price inspite of specific mention on the tag MRP inclusive of all taxes. When, once it is mentioned as MRP with inclusive of all taxes, charging of 5% VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice. Here we are fortified by the similar view taken by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 3723 of 2011, titled as “The Branch Manager, M/s Shirt Palace Branch, Black Bird Showroom Vs. Chandru H.C.”, decided on 16.01.2014. A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 210 of 2015, decided on 01.09.2015 in case titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Versus Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others”, wherein it has been held that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately.

 

10.      The ratio of the aforecited judicial pronouncements are squarely applicable to the present cases. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties in charging VAT on discounted product, clearly proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. 

 

11.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To refund excess charged VAT of Rs.371.88/- to the Complainant;

    

[b]  To pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

12.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation mentioned in sub-para [c] above. 

 

13.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17^th January,2017                                                        Sd/-        

(S.S. PANESAR)

       PRESIDENT

                                                           Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

                                                   Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

 “Dutt”